J Tyran:I hope there is a special circle of hell for people that pirate an indie game that has no DRM and has a demo. All of the excuses for piracy fall to pieces, its cheap, you do not need to crack it because of broken DRM and you can try the demo.

Plus its not a protest against big publishers and their practices its just the little guys trying to earn a living, no excuses whatsoever.

I find most pirates to have no excuse all round, regardless of it being an indie game, heavy DRM, or sticking it to a publisher. You are still technically stealing something that someone spent time on and that to me makes the whole, "Oh but it was for this reason" a terrible excuse. If I beat a woman, but say, "She was pregnant with my child and wouldn't get an abortion" I'm still an asshole who deserves to go to gaol. If I steal a frying pan, but say it's because I need something to cook my food, I'm still going to be punished via some form of recompense to the store/owner.

There is no reason to pirate a game. If you have a computer, you can afford to spend money on one game per month or one game per 2 months. I've only ever heard one viable excuse for piracy, and even then it's still not a good excuse (See Extra Credits Piracy episode).

An artist does NOT compromise his artistic integrity if he dumps thousands of dollars into something and then wants people to pay for entry.

An artist who wishes money for his art does not compromise his integrity but he does if he refuses to allow people to see it who can't afford to, it shows money has more value to him than that of his art.

Regardless of how it's implemented by whom now, IT STILL STARTED BECAUSE OF PIRATES. You cannot deny that.

It's not as if pirates are forcing them to do this, and while companies will try and scapegoat pirates for it they ultimately chose to include drm and they are ultimately responsible for treating their customers like scum.

Some faith is restored in humanity for such a funny troll. Oh god, if they only had this game for windows I still would have bought it. (I just bought it now and I can't wait to play it.) God thats soo funny.

You are not a "legitimate customer" until you buy the product. Before that, your'e a potential customer. Huge difference.

In your cupcake example, there is a little stand with free slices of cupcake on it. That's the demo.

The maggoty cupcakes are on the counter, but NEVER SERVED to anyone who buys a cupcake. The good ones are behind the counter, and you give them a good one when they buy one. They get to have a slice before they buy any.

But how would I know which ones I'm serving? The maggoty cupcakes intended to deter thieves or the ones that are meant to be sold with no maggots? I don't recall talking about the position of either one.

I'm a programmer and I'm aware that bugs are going to appear in any program. Even triple-A products like "Aliens: Colonial Marines" or "The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim" has their own fill of bugs that could hinder any kind of customer's -- whether legitimate or potential -- experience. AI might not work right; save games may get corrupted; or game-breaking events trigger to ruin the player from making any progress. These bugs can appear more as more features and people work on a product. Someone might be using the wrong assets in the game during launch which leads to some issues. Which, as I recall, what happened to EA with "Medal of Honor: WarFighter" that they had to release a massive patch on day one to fix.

So how can this form of DRM be trusted? We already have a good history of DRM working poorly in the game industry that it now has to be covered up -- such as "SimCity" being an MMO. We already know the developers intentionally put this DRM in their game to stop "thieves" and "bad men" who hurt them by "stealing" their work -- which they uploaded, by the way. Now this form of DRM is integrated into the core mechanics of the game instead of acting as a wrapper, as it triggers the state where the player keeps losing due to pirates for pirating the game. Am I suppose to trust the developers that they know what Boolean variable to flip to true/false when I pay them? Would you trust me with what cupcake I sell to you when I hand one over?

This has nothing to do with economics. In the cupcake example I intentionally put maggots in there to "teach the community" a lesson by being a troll. If I wanted to win people over to my cupcakes I should present it in a nice way, and treat any kind of customers with respect. I don't want maggots in my cupcakes, so I see no reason to make them to spite any thieves or "bad people". I should win them over for making good cupcakes.

I said this earlier... it's literally a separate version. He released the main version for purchase, and THEN he modded it and put the rigged version on the torrent sites.

There's literally no possible way for a customer to download the rigged version off the main site, because it's not DRM. It's a trap.

Piracy leads to more people playing your game, and if your game is good then they will not only gain trust in you as a developer (leading to much better sales for future games) but they will help market your game through word of mouth. Look at minecraft, not only is it one of the most easily pirated games of all time it is also one of the most successful indie games of all time. Why? Because piracy helped send it to almost viral like popularity.

Nope, Minecraft was already popular even during its beta days. If anything, it -- just like the Call of Duty franchise -- has a customer base so large, and cuts across so many demographics, that even if more than 50% of that demographic doesn't pony up cash, the rest are paying enough to guarantee the publisher some revenue.

But fine, piracy caused always-online DRM. We know this because the developers and publishers specifically said it was in place to combat pirates. Therefore, this isn't theoretical.

Therefore, if it wasn't for pirates, we wouldn't have had the disasters that were Assassin's Creed II, Diablo 3, and SimCity server crashes.

Your move.

It's also pushing devs towards F2P models. You can't pirate something that's free, so they figure they can move their revenue out of sales and into micro transactions.

Jury's still out on whether this is a bad thing... but if it turns out to be so, then yes, here's another problem.

Experiences may vary but I've yet to try a F2P that offered the same quality of experience as a p2p game if you spend a normal box-price or monthly sub fee in micro transactions. Most of what i've found has been either poor quality games or games with potholes built into the experience and a cash shop that sells gravel, but at a price far higher than what a normal game would cost you.

An artist does NOT compromise his artistic integrity if he dumps thousands of dollars into something and then wants people to pay for entry.

An artist who wishes money for his art does not compromise his integrity but he does if he refuses to allow people to see it who can't afford to, it shows money has more value to him than that of his art.

If you say so.

Regardless of how it's implemented by whom now, IT STILL STARTED BECAUSE OF PIRATES. You cannot deny that.

It's not as if pirates are forcing them to do this, and while companies will try and scapegoat pirates for it they ultimately chose to include drm and they are ultimately responsible for treating their customers like scum.

You asked for an example of pirates negatively affecting a game, and I gave you one.

The point is that the existence of pirates made DRM a thing in the first place, making any comment on who is using it irrelevant to your original request.

But how would I know which ones I'm serving? The maggoty cupcakes intended to deter thieves or the ones that are meant to be sold with no maggots? I don't recall talking about the position of either one.

Because any decent programmer who deliberately makes a broken game would do so in a branch, rather than committing the maggots to master and choosing whether to enable them based on DRM/activation status.

You asked for an example of pirates negatively affecting a game, and I gave you one.

The point is that the existence of pirates made DRM a thing in the first place, making any comment on who is using it irrelevant to your original request.

A) I should have been clearer, I meant games that where commercially damaged by piracyB) Blaming pirates for DRM is just an apologists attitude, the blame is entirely with publishers.

A. Moving the goalposts, man.

You know I can't do that anymore than you can prove that piracy has helped anything (and before you bring up Minecraft again... no. I found out about it back when it was in Alpha, had a kickass demo and a tiny pricetag. And I got a bunch of people hooked on it at that time as well, as did many of my other friends. There was a whole bleeding Minecraft league at my University, and not a single one of them had pirated it. Figure that one out.).

B. Why not share the blame? When there's people involved, it's never the fault of just one. Maybe pirates should stop trying to depict themselves as free market knights (they're anything but) or even the trampled common folk (they lost that status once they started getting everything for free) and just admit that they've helped cause some crappy stuff to happen because they're freaking greedy. Everyone knows it, they just don't like to admit it.

I own 204 games on steam and I have over 100 boxed copies in my shelf....I also have 50 ps3 games in my shelf and 20 on psn...And you know what? Almost all of those games I pirated before I bought them.

I'm a poor student that downloads games and play them.When I finally earn some money I buy the games I've pirated.

Don't go saying every pirate is a bastard that only pirates because he wants free stuff.

Magefeanor:I own 204 games on steam and I have over 100 boxed copies in my shelf....I also have 50 ps3 games in my shelf and 20 on psn...And you know what? Almost all of those games I pirated before I bought them.

I'm a poor student that downloads games and play them.When I finally earn some money I buy the games I've pirated.

Don't go saying every pirate is a bastard that only pirates because he wants free stuff.

What gives you the right to set up your own demo plans? Have you ever tried going to a car lot and asking for a monthlong test drive?If a developer releases a demo, play the demo. If they don't, don't.

lacktheknack:(and before you bring up Minecraft again... no. I found out about it back when it was in Alpha, had a kickass demo and a tiny pricetag. And I got a bunch of people hooked on it at that time as well, as did many of my other friends. There was a whole bleeding Minecraft league at my University, and not a single one of them had pirated it. Figure that one out.)

Well I remember very clearly that the original spreading of Minecraft through the internet was largely by a mixture of pirates and Notch's viral marketing on 4chan which gathered a large userbase there who then spread it via word of mouth.

B. Why not share the blame? When there's people involved, it's never the fault of just one. Maybe pirates should stop trying to depict themselves as free market knights (they're anything but) or even the trampled common folk (they lost that status once they started getting everything for free) and just admit that they've helped cause some crappy stuff to happen because they're freaking greedy. Everyone knows it, they just don't like to admit it.

Because pirates simply aren't accountable for the actions of publishers, publishers choose to add DRM and thus they hold full accountability. Using the cupcake metaphor someone was using earlier, if I found out someone had been stealing cupcakes from my store and I decide to spoil them on purpose to stop the thief, there is no conceivable way I can blame the thief for my own stupidity in doing so, how I reacted was purely my own choice.

JazzJack2:Because pirates simply aren't accountable for the actions of publishers, publishers choose to add DRM and thus they hold full accountability. Using the cupcake metaphor someone was using earlier, if I found out someone had been stealing cupcakes from my store and I decide to spoil them on purpose to stop the thief, there is no conceivable way I can blame the thief for my own stupidity in doing so, how I reacted was purely my own choice.

By the same token, publishers can't be blamed when their DRM encourages dissatisfied customers to resort to piracy, but I'd be willing to bet you wouldn't make that argument. Using the cupcake metaphor before, following this train of logic, if someone steals a maggoty cupcake, they have no business complaining since they're the one who stole it.

While a person or publisher has a choice in HOW they react to something, the fact is that a reaction still requires an initial action. Pirates may not be directly responsible, but they certainly created a strong reason for DRM to be made. To say they deserve no blame is just ridiculous.

"If you agree with him, and can spare the eight bucks, you can buy the game for Mac, Linux and Windows"

Ehm, just because I agree doesn't mean his game is good enough for me to justify spending a big part of my very limited budget on it. Nor if it's a game I'd personally would like (even good/great games are so widespread there are ten others out there competing with this one, and then there's the matter of genre and my preferences).

As a journalist you should keep a distinction between good moral choices and good game content.Morally "great" people can still make very crappy games, so if you want to justify your "Buy option" message in this news article, the least you can do is do a review first or say something that actually tells us your opinion on the game!

PIRACY IS NOT STEALING ~ the act of pirating is sharing\copying software.this means there is NO value lost because nothing is missing.

piracy is in fact a great self marketing tool , word of mouth is much more powerful than traditional advertising.

Even if 10 million people pirate a game and 1 million buy it the product sold as expected with no losesbecause as stated above the act of piracy does not lower the value of that product BUT the free word of mouthadvertising will surely give extra value to said product as some people who wouldn't buy it HEAR its a good deal and they will give it a try.

therefore Piracy increases the value and does not decrease it.

just some facts.

now the most used argument against piracy is "it hurts the developer" this is just false information.piracy whole heartily helps the dev by making the game and the dev a household name.the fact that people play it use the product for free is just a bit of a downside emotionally not financially since non of those were lost sales or lost value, NON OF THEM.

if the product in question was a thing that caught the attention of the people it will be successful if its average or bad it will die. only the strong survive.

Piracy as a whole is not damaging anyone financially that's just fact.Morally it is wrong , your point of view on the matter does not change anything its just morally wrong.but that's between the pirate and himself not the dev or publisher.

now DRM that's a good one...while its birth was to combat piracy it's a known old fact the it does jack to stop it.at best it can hold the piracy rate at bay for a couple days maybe a month or 2 but in the end it wont change anything and the Crack teams get a whole lot of practice out of it.

DRM is only causing problems to the real threat to the companies that use it....(pause for effect)....the used game market. they are the ones who hurt developers and publishers financially by resealing the same product and giving nothing in return. by setting up DRM in games in such a way that you have to tie it down to something you actively cut that copy from being sold back, at most cases anyway depending on type of DRM.

Piracy is just a very good target to direct all the blame at since the bad ol' pirates get the games for free.

so in TL:DR fasion ~

piracy is not causing harm , piracy does good , its morally wrong , drm is a way to combat used game sales.

now the most used argument against piracy is "it hurts the developer" this is just false information.piracy whole heartily helps the dev by making the game and the dev a household name.the fact that people play it use the product for free is just a bit of a downside emotionally not financially since non of those were lost sales or lost value, NON OF THEM.

You don't think devs use sales figures when negotiating contracts with publishers? You don't think in-house devs get more resources based on sales figures? You don't think there's one person who would have bought a game they pirated if they couldn't pirate it?

now the most used argument against piracy is "it hurts the developer" this is just false information.piracy whole heartily helps the dev by making the game and the dev a household name.the fact that people play it use the product for free is just a bit of a downside emotionally not financially since non of those were lost sales or lost value, NON OF THEM.

You don't think devs use sales figures when negotiating contracts with publishers? You don't think in-house devs get more resources based on sales figures? You don't think there's one person who would have bought a game they pirated if they couldn't pirate it?

Do i think they use sales figures? yes i do.they use the actual game sales aka people who bought retail\ digital.do i think they include theoretical sales? hell no.

pirated copy's are not lost sales, case closed.you cant make business decisions from vague estimates and theoretical sales.

do i personally think out of those people who pirate some one would have bought a copy if he didn't have the option? of curse some would , just like out of the people who pirate there are those who still buy copies afterwards.those are just maybes and they work both ways.you should not be making contracts using estimated numbers based on maybes.

if that's how the industry does business then they have only themselves to blame for it , piracy is still not a cause.

Maybe pirates should stop trying to depict themselves as free market knights (they're anything but) or even the trampled common folk (they lost that status once they started getting everything for free) and just admit that they've helped cause some crappy stuff to happen because they're freaking greedy. Everyone knows it, they just don't like to admit it.

Wait. You want to make some vague, undefined "other" to collectively, hive-mind-like, even, "admit" something?

Good luck with that.

Because, if not, I don't see why treat "pirates" as one amorphous entity.

JazzJack2:But piracy doesn't make developers lose money, in fact it does the opposite, devs gain money from piracy.

Entitled:I agree with that, but this is only true because there ARE those 5-10% percent of players who buy it after hearing from it through piracy, because they feel the responsibility to support the developers.

I get why you want to believe this stuff but it's just not true.

If it were, the advent of piracy and bittorrent and all that stuff would have seen sales rise exponentially, and it's not the case, certainly not for PC developers.

I do "get" that given that we live in a world of piracy, perhaps piracy does contribute a few sales. But it's like smashing a dam with a wrecking ball - no water can flow through the wrecking ball either, but it's hardly blocking the river any more.

Oh, and for a game killed by piracy, NHL Eastside Hockey Manager, made by Sports Interactive, now SI Games. I'm surprised by the line on Wikipedia that "most feel" that it was a lack of advertising issue - that certainly wasn't the going opinion at the time. The official line (from the devs, on their own forums, not the publishers) was specifically that it's core market, one big enough for it to survive and slowly grow, was Scandinavia where sales tanked and yet EHM2k7 torrents were all over The Pirate Bay and other Scandinavian filesharing sites. Why was it not a hit in the USA and Canada? No idea.

P.S. Yeah, I read to the end of the thread, but your original soundbites were perfectly concise.

Since the "discussion" went south very quick (big surprise) I will just address the article.

I think this is a very witty way to discourage pirates.

Here are my reasons why:

1. Pirates still get to experience the game for demo purposes but they don't get a better version. The problem with piracy on games that have horrible DRM is that the pirated version normally provides a better service. For this game it isn't.

2. [B]This somewhat anti-piracy tactic does not in ANY WAY effect legit paying customers. Isn't this what everyone who hates DRM wants? Anti-piracy measures that don't F over legit customers?[/b]

3. It gets players to think about the effects of piracy (whether exaggerated or not) without trying to sound douchy about it. From what I understood they were trying to convert pirates into paying customers by providing a better service(game) than the pirated version.

I tried reading some comments about those who hated this idea but I couldn't find a coherent and well presented response against it so I would welcome someone to provide a rebuttle for a good debate.

now the most used argument against piracy is "it hurts the developer" this is just false information.piracy whole heartily helps the dev by making the game and the dev a household name.the fact that people play it use the product for free is just a bit of a downside emotionally not financially since non of those were lost sales or lost value, NON OF THEM.

You don't think devs use sales figures when negotiating contracts with publishers? You don't think in-house devs get more resources based on sales figures? You don't think there's one person who would have bought a game they pirated if they couldn't pirate it?

Do i think they use sales figures? yes i do.they use the actual game sales aka people who bought retail\ digital.do i think they include theoretical sales? hell no.

pirated copy's are not lost sales, case closed.you cant make business decisions from vague estimates and theoretical sales.

do i personally think out of those people who pirate some one would have bought a copy if he didn't have the option? of curse some would , just like out of the people who pirate there are those who still buy copies afterwards.those are just maybes and they work both ways.you should not be making contracts using estimated numbers based on maybes.

if that's how the industry does business then they have only themselves to blame for it , piracy is still not a cause.

You would have to make a case for it to be closed.You yourself admitted that some pirates would have purchased a copy if piracy was unavailable. THERE'S YOUR LOST SALE RIGHT THERE. Not theoretical, an actual 1 to add to the list of sales.

If it were, the advent of piracy and bittorrent and all that stuff would have seen sales rise exponentially, and it's not the case, certainly not for PC developers.

While not specifically at the rise of bittorrent, (which didn't really increase the amount of piracy either just made it more comfortable), but generally with the spread of internet usage in general, game profits did rise pretty rapidly, along with most other entertainment media.

Here are some amazing statistics about entertainment industry's growth in the past decade:

Though it's a shaky correlation, because a lot of things changed in the past decades - a swich to digital distribution, easier online advertising, stronger word of mouth through social media (through pirates and non-pirates), but yeah, that specific data doesn't particularly DISPORVE the idea that free access to copies helps sales. AAA bugets have been skyrocketing, the indie scene just exploded all over the place in the past years, crowdfunding did grow exponentially in the past 3-4 years, etc.

I do "get" that given that we live in a world of piracy, perhaps piracy does contribute a few sales. But it's like smashing a dam with a wrecking ball - no water can flow through the wrecking ball either, but it's hardly blocking the river any more.

The funny thing is, we can't really tell. The stories about piracy lsing a few sales, where someone obviously planned to buy a game but decided against it because there was piratebay, are just as anectdotal as the ones about someone wanting to buy it thanks to piracy. Only the above charts are certain. Entertainment is not dying, it's growing like crazy.

Oh, and for a game killed by piracy, NHL Eastside Hockey Manager, made by Sports Interactive, now SI Games. I'm surprised by the line on Wikipedia that "most feel" that it was a lack of advertising issue - that certainly wasn't the going opinion at the time.

The problem with picking specific games that were killed by piracy, is that they always boil down to a Single Cause Fallacy.

Piracy is a constant. Many crazy-successful games have reported 90-95% piracy rates. It is simply a fact, that EVERY game is 90% pirated. We don't truly know whether it truly means a financial loss for the overall industry, but that's the data.

And obviously, some games are going to fail.

So you could basically picky ANY game that failed, and say "Well, if only that piracy rate wouldn't be there..." But that's only wishful thinking, like "well, if only they wouldn't have had to pay taxes", or "Well, if only it was better advertised" we don't know what would have happened in an alternate universe where piracy doesn't exist. Maybe those 90% would have still spent their money on something else.

SecondPrize:I don't like anyone in this story. I believe pirates are pulling us closer to a f2p future (not in a good way), but there isn't anything worse than developers who straight up rip off their competitors. Don't buy this game to show support for developers hit by piracy. Buy Game Dev Story to show support for the above, as well as support for devs who see their products cloned by douches like these.

Yeah.

Kairosoft deserves the support.

I have a full page of phone games from them and they are the best on the shop.

You don't think devs use sales figures when negotiating contracts with publishers? You don't think in-house devs get more resources based on sales figures? You don't think there's one person who would have bought a game they pirated if they couldn't pirate it?

Do i think they use sales figures? yes i do.they use the actual game sales aka people who bought retail\ digital.do i think they include theoretical sales? hell no.

pirated copy's are not lost sales, case closed.you cant make business decisions from vague estimates and theoretical sales.

do i personally think out of those people who pirate some one would have bought a copy if he didn't have the option? of curse some would , just like out of the people who pirate there are those who still buy copies afterwards.those are just maybes and they work both ways.you should not be making contracts using estimated numbers based on maybes.

if that's how the industry does business then they have only themselves to blame for it , piracy is still not a cause.

You would have to make a case for it to be closed.You yourself admitted that some pirates would have purchased a copy if piracy was unavailable. THERE'S YOUR LOST SALE RIGHT THERE. Not theoretical, an actual 1 to add to the list of sales.

i made my argument about that in my original post~yeah i admitted that i THINK there would be some who would pay for that game.but you cant count sales based on THOUGHT , the only way for you to count that as a lost sale would be if you had the knowledge that some of those people would 100% buy that game if the piracy option was not available but you cant know that and that's the whole point. there's no way to get accurate numbers on any of this meaning you count lost sales on theoretical information.

on that note what do you then say to a pirate that bought that same game he pirated later ?based on your calculations that's still a "lost sale" in the sales figures even if the pirate got it legit.the publisher only sees that a new copy was sold but doesn't see less pirated copy's. and then just claims like the rest that even tho sales were high piracy " crippled" half of it or some other nonsense like that.its inherently a flawed system and should not be used.

Ilikemilkshake:It's a bit heavy handed but still kind of funny, especially that the pirates then went on the forums and started complaining.

Heavy handed? Ending up fucking most of the people that play your game because of some pirates is heavy handed. These people basically went to go steal this company's product their version deserves to be bricked in my opinion.

OP: wow that is impressive. Never though about it until now but companies could post up virus filled games all over torrent sites to give the pirates their just deserts... they can call it scurvy.

I'm not saying they deserve a working game. For clarification I meant that the "message" was being delivered in a ham fisted manner. In the altered torrent version every company will go bust because of piracy 100% of the time no matter what. That isn't what happens in real life, a pirated copy doesn't automatically mean a lost sale.

Well then at least someone is actually considering there is no real reason for piracy other than the fact that some people simply do not want to pay, which is true because cases like this prove all of the sob stories (great description btw) are bullshit.

Not wanting to pay someone for something they created is wrong, no other way around it. Sure its not the same as theft but its taking something for nothing and not giving someone their fair due, anyone trying to justify it needs to realign their morals. Putting self entitlement ahead of fair due is one thing when it comes to big publishers that make billions but its a another when it comes to hard working devs that rely on their income for their bread and butter.

At the end of the day I have no personal ax to grind over piracy, I have no issues with some types of piracy either. Like when people pirate a TV show or film that for whatever reason had restricted availability in their region but they later buy the BD/DVD. Same goes for when publishers go out of their way to avoid selling or supporting a game outside of certain countries, thats pants on head retarded and its their own fault if it gets copied.

I just wish the train of bullshit excuses would go away when people simply want a product without paying for it.

No, I mean that in a general sense. What if there is no NEED for sob stories, because piracy is not evil?

In other words, how do you know what you know?

There are plenty of examples of you benefiting using something without necessarily paying money, because the business model ended up that way. Wikipedia (donations), The Escapist (ads), Land TV broadcasting (ads), F2P (optional paying customets), fanfiction, webcomics, youtube cartoons (hobby work), etc.

Of course, the difference between these and piracy, is that these agreed to free distribution.

But how do you know that for publishers, it's "their fair due" to force a business model on yo where everyone has to pay?

Now assume that the game actually ends up being profitable, like most do, regardless of piracy. Compared to some low level animator or sound effects designer, who just got a monthly paycheck for his work and that's it, why should there also be an "IP holder", who beyond getting money, also has "a fair due" to feel morally entitled to limit the number of people playing the game?

Beyond the financial ad absurdum of how the industry would break down if everyone would pirate, basically all arguments I hear about piracy, boil down to this moral feeling of how artists should have a right to keep controlling EXACTLY what happens to every copy of their work.

But where does it come from? Most workers have no such rights, they just work, and that's it. Why are artists so priviledged, that their rights involve cntrolling the rest of the world's data transmission to protect their "fair due?"